tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12031134.post115568793706318354..comments2015-03-02T15:41:08.105-08:00Comments on Doing Justice: Bad WritingKCnoreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12031134.post-34244154397799536602009-06-07T11:04:08.057-07:002009-06-07T11:04:08.057-07:00If Martha Nussbaum has misinterpreted Judith Butle...If Martha Nussbaum has misinterpreted Judith Butler, the fault would seem to lie largely with Butler herself. Any style of writing that overuses obscure terms distracts from the actual &quot;philosophy&quot;, as Nussbaum explicitly points out. Furthermore, the specific writing in the aforementioned passage, by not being specific at ALL (i.e. contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power---what exactly is she referring to?) opens itself up to numerous interpretaions. This is slightly akin to Michel Foucault&#39;s criticism of Derrida which claimed that Derrida intentionally obscured his work to hide the weakness of his ideas, and then &quot;terrorized&quot; anyone who criticized those ideas as not being intelligent enough. Thus, Nussbaum&#39;s reworking has an implicit revelation about Butler&#39;s writing. As Friedrich Nietzsche so aptly put it: &quot;Those who know that they are profound strive for clarity. Those who would like to seem profound to the crowd strive for obscurity&quot;. One might question why Butler chooses to write in this style at all! If she believes in her own ideas, why can&#39;t she effectively put them across (whereas scientists, linguists, other philosophers, and literary critics alike have been able to do so)! Is it possible to say that John Rawls, Noam Chomsky, Brian Greene, and Terry Eagleton are only able to convey their ideas because their ideas are inferior to Butler&#39;s???<br />From a purely philosophical standpoint, the cards are stacked for Butler to fail because she is so solipsistic and narrowed to her own brand of reason. She has no experience or apparent knowledge of biology, and so for her to writing biology off in her &quot;Gender Trouble&quot; without being aware of biologists&#39; greatest arguments greatly discredits her already obscurely written ideas. Butler&#39;s worst enemy is Butler. <br />Finally, the problem with writing off our intellectual tradition and our thought as patriarchal is itself a wildly far-out claim that fails to pick out the specific problems that patriarchal thought have. Why is our thought and language, even if founded by patriarchal insitutions or supporting patriarchal beliefs, limited in use to men? Surely there cannot be a ressentiment of men founded on anger that &quot;men got there first&quot;??? If this is so, then Butler (and you as well if you agree with her) are culpable of an enormous genetic fallacy. Nussbaum has argued, with precision and care, that the arguments of the man Socrates, founded on sheer reason and dialectic, can be used by women to pave the way for a new future for feminisim.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12031134.post-1155951535863841762006-08-18T18:38:00.000-07:002006-08-18T18:38:00.000-07:00>>> If Structuralists saw signs as windows to a tr...>>> If Structuralists saw signs as windows to a trans-empirical world of crystalline order, of identities of form that maintained themselves over time and outside of history, of codes of meaning that seemed exempt from the differences entailed by the contingencies of living examples, Post-Structuralist [sic] claims all such orders are strategies of power and social control… <<<<<BR/><BR/>this was offered as a lucid piece of prose.<BR/><BR/>I'm slayed. Truly slayed. Seriously? This would not be understood by even a degreed member of the reading public, let alone someone who didn't have a college degree.<BR/><BR/>Call me conceited, but seriously? I don't think anyone who has never actually had to write for the average college-educated bloke -- and gotten *honest* feedback -- should even speak to this issue.<BR/><BR/>OK. I'm obsesses. 3 comments in a row! But it is my pet peeve!<BR/><BR/>I'm not saying people are dumb, far from it. I am saying that academic discourse is a product of a discipline. It has a language just like plumbing has a language. When my partner comes in from turning wrenches on The Beast and shows off his handiwork, I have NO clue what he's talking about.<BR/><BR/>I realize people think academics have some sort of public mission -- I spent years on a couple of research projects fueled by that same passion.<BR/><BR/>But seriously? It ain't easy, even when every soul on that large, funded research project tries hard to be understood by the general public.<BR/><BR/>there are a lot of barriers to that understanding -- and a good deal of it has to do with social class, status, anti-intellectualism, etc. in this culture.<BR/><BR/>I dare say that tackling those things is the issue. But, it's easier to attack bad writing -- which, by the way, has been going on in my discpline (sociology) since dogs ruled the earth.<BR/><BR/>*le sigh*<BR/><BR/>OK. I exagerrate. There was a lot of navel gazing in the 50s about tortured specialist prose in my discipline.<BR/><BR/>Besides which, when folks understand it, it doesn't always mean happy happy joy joy. e.g., The authors of Small Town in MAss Society were burned in effigy when the residents of the community they studied read their work. <BR/><BR/>*grin*Bitch | Labhttp://blog.pulpculture.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12031134.post-1155950344056539482006-08-18T18:19:00.000-07:002006-08-18T18:19:00.000-07:00What is truly irritating is that Nussbaum ought to...What is truly irritating is that Nussbaum ought to try blogging. Were she to spend, oh say, a year doing so, she will read, uncensored, just how hard it is for a lot of people, even graduates of college, to understand what she wrote.<BR/><BR/>I typically say that to anyone who thinks it's easy writing to the general audience -- because I've done that for about 15 years now in several different capacities. The good thing for me was that, unlike so many academics (and I'm not an academic currently), I've actually had the honor of getting feedback from readers.<BR/><BR/>Even when you are writing prose that nearly any academic who appreciates clear writing will tell you is just what they mean by the phrase, I have learned that it is not at all clear to most folks reading.<BR/><BR/>Ooooo. My blood boils on this topic!Bitch | Labhttp://blog.pulpculture.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12031134.post-1155949580689034662006-08-18T18:06:00.000-07:002006-08-18T18:06:00.000-07:00i think i love you. no. i know i love you. i love ...i think i love you. no. i know i love you. i love you i love you i love you. <BR/><BR/>i love you. ok. fill up a couple of screen scrolls with I love you. and i've only got to the part where you say that nussbaum fancied herself writing clearly.<BR/><BR/>*grin*Bitch | Labhttp://blog.pulpculture.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12031134.post-1155753672474498182006-08-16T11:41:00.000-07:002006-08-16T11:41:00.000-07:00Thanks for this. Am I incorrect in assuming that ...Thanks for this. <BR/><BR/>Am I incorrect in assuming that the root of this passive-aggressive sniping is a disagreement over the most efficient way to expand the social agency of academe?Clampetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14614912993130720757noreply@blogger.com